Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 06 Sep 2015 (Sunday) 16:41
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "How wide would you go?"
Canon 20mm f2.8
0
0%
Canon 17-40 f4
7
36.8%
Tokina 16-28 f2.8
12
63.2%

19 voters, 19 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How wide is wide enough?

 
jimeuph1
Member
215 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 06, 2015 16:41 |  #1

My current widest is a 35mm

Just a few occasions where I feel I need wider so how wide is wide enough?

My choices currently are:

Canon 20mm 2.8

Canon 17-40mm f4

Tokina 16-28 2.8

This is a budget based decision for now, otherwise I would buy the 24mm 1.4 and the 16-35 2.8.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 288
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 06, 2015 21:18 |  #2

Depending on your style also consider the Samyang 14mm F2.8


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,962 posts
Likes: 351
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Sep 07, 2015 17:30 |  #3

16mm on full frame. I only use OEM lenses, I find I have far fewer problems that way. Canon lenses on Canon bodies, Nikon lenses on Nikon bodies.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,106 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1124
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 07, 2015 17:38 |  #4

For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimeuph1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
215 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 07, 2015 18:06 |  #5

Pulled the trigger on the Tokina, it seems the best bang for buck and I have never had a problem with 3rd party lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,414 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2109
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Sep 07, 2015 20:29 |  #6

gonzogolf wrote in post #17698609 (external link)
For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.

agreed. but those can be fun.

jimeuph1 wrote in post #17698655 (external link)
Pulled the trigger on the Tokina, it seems the best bang for buck and I have never had a problem with 3rd party lenses.

i use mine at 20 and above most of the time. I bought it so i could have a zoom with virtually no distortion between 22 and 28. Use it there and be aware of possible flare issues and you will be fine. With 2.8 you can crank the ISO and shutter speed to shoot one handed and block any strong light against the front element with your spare hand.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pencilnink
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Sep 08, 2015 03:08 |  #7

From the choices you provided, I'd go for the Tokina. It's faster and wider than the canon lenses, however the fact that its front element sticks out is a major downside for me. For myself, i prefer to use the 16-35.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimeuph1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
215 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 08, 2015 05:16 |  #8

Pencil, the 16-35 was out of budget, it's the sort of thing I would upgrade to if the UWA proved its self an invaluable addition to coverage.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 288
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 08, 2015 05:32 |  #9

16-35 (used on the wide end)

e.g. 1 (external link)

e.g. 2 (external link)

e.g. 3 (external link)

e.g. 4 (external link)

e.g. 5 (external link)

It really isn't that hard to use it a lot on the wide end.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimeuph1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
215 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 08, 2015 06:00 |  #10

Thanks Peter, while I have uses for it set out in my head, I am still quite budget and that comes with places I need to disguise rather than show off more often than not, so we shall see what my real world results are.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pencilnink
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2012
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Sep 08, 2015 10:16 |  #11

jimeuph1 wrote in post #17699150 (external link)
Pencil, the 16-35 was out of budget, it's the sort of thing I would upgrade to if the UWA proved its self an invaluable addition to coverage.


I think it all depends on your style really. The Tokina is good, I had a friend who used it before he went to the canon 16-35. It's only the front element that scares me and the fact that I can't use regular filters for creative purposes.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,422 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2420
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt.
     
Sep 08, 2015 17:35 |  #12

gonzogolf wrote in post #17698609 (external link)
For weddings anything wider than 16\17 is pretty much for novelty shots.

And unless you are wanting to make the Fat Lady fatter compared to the thin man farther away, or the lady with the Big Buns look even bigger, I even would avoid shooting a group shot with people (vs. a scene-establishing shot with poeople in it), unless they are 12-15' away at least...as the possibility of inducing perspective distortion with too-close subject distance is too great.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
urbanfreestyle
I am a squirrel who loves rubbing bottles and I have Nuts in my drawers, too!
Avatar
2,042 posts
Gallery: 9 photos
Likes: 225
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Exeter, Devon
Post edited over 3 years ago by urbanfreestyle.
     
Sep 08, 2015 17:38 |  #13

erm... none of the above. I have 8mm at the moment as my widest...
(dont ask why i was shooting that high iso... long story....

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/739/21249339641_35c5352e19_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ynJq​mR  (external link) Nibbles (external link) by Geoff Palmer (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/668/21216252456_5b97b7b789_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/yjNQ​G9  (external link) Biker life (external link) by Geoff Palmer (external link), on Flickr

Facebook (external link)
Canon 1D Mk IV | Canon 50mm 1.8 Mk1 | Sigma 'Bigma' 50-500 | Fuji XE1 | Helios 44/m | 50mm 1.4 | Manfrotto 055CX PRO3 | 3LT Mohawk ballhead | Lubitel 2 med format camera |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimeuph1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
215 posts
Likes: 25
Joined Jul 2014
     
Sep 08, 2015 18:15 |  #14

I know it's to be used with caution regarding people.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,562 posts
Likes: 479
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Sep 09, 2015 11:36 |  #15

I guess we are talking full frame focal lengths, right? I don't think I could get a lens wide enough. I've shot as wide as 12mm on FF and wished I had more.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,240 views & 1 like for this thread
How wide is wide enough?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Gianpaolo
940 guests, 336 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.